The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
4 Complete revision in the light of new information
source | link

John Locke (Is it?) strings together No, in fact Jean-Jacques Rousseau strings together four rhetorical questions to describe aspects of life and society where people have surrendered their "natural" rights and freedom. The semi-colons show the end of each question.

In each case he asks, 'How have people let this happen so willingly?'

By what art/ technique did anyone manage to .1. turn them into subjects? .2. persuade them to part with their money in taxes? .3. let them chose to restrict their own freedom in legislation? .4. consent to imprisonment and other cruelties in their communities ?

If this quotation had been extended by one more sentence you would learn the answer to all four questions,

"These wonders are the work of law. It is to law alone that men owe justice and liberty". Social Contract: Rousseau

And Is it worth it? Yes, says Rouseau (answering his own question, Anthypophera )

It is this salutary organ of the will of all which establishes, in civil right, the natural equality between men.*

John Locke (Is it?) strings together four rhetorical questions to describe aspects of life and society where people have surrendered their "natural" rights and freedom. The semi-colons show the end of each question.

In each case he asks, 'How have people let this happen so willingly?'

By what art/ technique did anyone manage to .1. turn them into subjects? .2. persuade them to part with their money in taxes? .3. let them chose to restrict their own freedom in legislation? .4. consent to imprisonment and other cruelties in their communities ?

John Locke (Is it?) No, in fact Jean-Jacques Rousseau strings together four rhetorical questions to describe aspects of life and society where people have surrendered their "natural" rights and freedom. The semi-colons show the end of each question.

In each case he asks, 'How have people let this happen so willingly?'

By what art/ technique did anyone manage to .1. turn them into subjects? .2. persuade them to part with their money in taxes? .3. let them chose to restrict their own freedom in legislation? .4. consent to imprisonment and other cruelties in their communities ?

If this quotation had been extended by one more sentence you would learn the answer to all four questions,

"These wonders are the work of law. It is to law alone that men owe justice and liberty". Social Contract: Rousseau

And Is it worth it? Yes, says Rouseau (answering his own question, Anthypophera )

It is this salutary organ of the will of all which establishes, in civil right, the natural equality between men.*

3 Rollback to Revision 1
source | link

John Locke (Is it?) strings together four rhetorical questionsfour rhetorical questions to describe aspects of life and society where people have surrendered their "natural" rights and freedom. The semi-colons in the text show the end of each question.

In each case he asks, 'How have people let this loss happen so willingly?'

In each case he asks, 'How have people let this happen so willingly?'

By what art/ technique/ magic did anyone manage to .1. turn them into subjects? .2. persuade them to part with their money in taxes? .3. let them chose to restrict their own freedom in legislation? .4. consent to imprisonment and other cruelties in their communities ?

The rhetorical question is slightly less confrontational than saying "You fools, you have surrendered your independence, your earnings, freedom, moral standards." See Epiplexis (and Erotesis ) on Nordquist's site. The bombastic reiteration is intended to bludgeon.

Here he is setting up the argument, which it will be interesting to compare with that of Hobbes(the cost of government) and Voltaire (the intrusion of government).(& see comments above.)

John Locke strings together four rhetorical questions to describe aspects of life and society where people have surrendered their "natural" rights and freedom. The semi-colons in the text show the end of each question.

In each case he asks, 'How have people let this loss happen so willingly?'

By what art/ technique/ magic did anyone manage to .1. turn them into subjects? .2. persuade them to part with their money in taxes? .3. let them chose to restrict their own freedom in legislation? .4. consent to imprisonment and other cruelties in their communities ?

The rhetorical question is slightly less confrontational than saying "You fools, you have surrendered your independence, your earnings, freedom, moral standards." See Epiplexis (and Erotesis ) on Nordquist's site. The bombastic reiteration is intended to bludgeon.

Here he is setting up the argument, which it will be interesting to compare with that of Hobbes(the cost of government) and Voltaire (the intrusion of government).(& see comments above.)

John Locke (Is it?) strings together four rhetorical questions to describe aspects of life and society where people have surrendered their "natural" rights and freedom. The semi-colons show the end of each question.

In each case he asks, 'How have people let this happen so willingly?'

By what art/ technique did anyone manage to .1. turn them into subjects? .2. persuade them to part with their money in taxes? .3. let them chose to restrict their own freedom in legislation? .4. consent to imprisonment and other cruelties in their communities ?

2 Added references (rhetorical), Description of this stage of the argument. Confirm John Locke.
source | link

John Locke (Is it?) strings together four rhetorical questionsfour rhetorical questions to describe aspects of life and society where people have surrendered their "natural" rights and freedom. The semi-colons in the text show the end of each question.

In each case he asks, 'How have people let this happen so willingly?'

In each case he asks, 'How have people let this loss happen so willingly?'

By what art/ technique/ magic did anyone manage to .1. turn them into subjects? .2. persuade them to part with their money in taxes? .3. let them chose to restrict their own freedom in legislation? .4. consent to imprisonment and other cruelties in their communities ?

The rhetorical question is slightly less confrontational than saying "You fools, you have surrendered your independence, your earnings, freedom, moral standards." See Epiplexis (and Erotesis ) on Nordquist's site. The bombastic reiteration is intended to bludgeon.

Here he is setting up the argument, which it will be interesting to compare with that of Hobbes(the cost of government) and Voltaire (the intrusion of government).(& see comments above.)

John Locke (Is it?) strings together four rhetorical questions to describe aspects of life and society where people have surrendered their "natural" rights and freedom. The semi-colons show the end of each question.

In each case he asks, 'How have people let this happen so willingly?'

By what art/ technique did anyone manage to .1. turn them into subjects? .2. persuade them to part with their money in taxes? .3. let them chose to restrict their own freedom in legislation? .4. consent to imprisonment and other cruelties in their communities ?

John Locke strings together four rhetorical questions to describe aspects of life and society where people have surrendered their "natural" rights and freedom. The semi-colons in the text show the end of each question.

In each case he asks, 'How have people let this loss happen so willingly?'

By what art/ technique/ magic did anyone manage to .1. turn them into subjects? .2. persuade them to part with their money in taxes? .3. let them chose to restrict their own freedom in legislation? .4. consent to imprisonment and other cruelties in their communities ?

The rhetorical question is slightly less confrontational than saying "You fools, you have surrendered your independence, your earnings, freedom, moral standards." See Epiplexis (and Erotesis ) on Nordquist's site. The bombastic reiteration is intended to bludgeon.

Here he is setting up the argument, which it will be interesting to compare with that of Hobbes(the cost of government) and Voltaire (the intrusion of government).(& see comments above.)

1
source | link